PERBEDAAN TAFSIR MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMUTUS PERKARA PEMILIHAN UMUM SERENTAK

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legislative Elections ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Legislative Election

ABSTRAKSelama ini pemilu presiden dan pemilu legislatif dilakukan secara terpisah atau tidak serentak. Pemilu legislatif selalu dilakukan sebelum pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden. Pemilihan umum yang dilakukan secara terpisah dianggap lebih banyak dampak negatifnya serta tidak sesuai dengan UUD NRI 1945. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitis dengan pendekatan peraturan perundangundangan. Rumusan masalahnya adalah bagaimanakah pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 sehingga terjadi perbedaan dengan putusan sebelumnya Nomor 51-52-59/PUUVI/ 2008 terkait dengan pelaksanaan pemilu serentak. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUUXI/ 2013 tentang pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Presiden dan Wakil Presiden terjadi inkonsistensi. Putusan Nomor 14/ PUU-XI/2013 memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden harus dilaksanakan secara bersamaan dengan pemilu anggota DPR, DPR, dan DPRD. Sedangkan dalam putusan sebelumnya yaitu Putusan Nomor 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 pada pengujian pasal dan undang-undang yang sama (Pasal 3 ayat (5) Undang- Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008), Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden yang dilaksanakan setelah pemilu anggota DPR, DPD, dan DPRD (tidak serentak) adalah tidak bertentangan dengan UUD NRI 1945 (konstitusional). Terjadinya pertentangan putusan ini antara lain disebabkan oleh perbedaan pilihan penafsiran konstitusi.Kata kunci: inkonsistensi, mahkamah konstitusi, pemilu serentak. ABSTRACTDuring this time, the presidential and legislative elections are conducted separately or not simultaneously. The Legislative Elections are always carried out prior to the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The general election is conducted separately as considerably having more negative impacts and inconsistency with the 1945 Constitution. This analysis uses descriptive analysis method with the pertinent laws and regulations approach. The formulation of the issue is what the Constitutional Court Justices took into consideration in its Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 leading to differences to that of its previous Decision Number 51- 52-59/PUU-VI/2008 concerning the implementation of simultaneous elections. The analysis results show inconsistencies in the consideration of the Constitutional Court Justices in ruling the case through the Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 on the judicial review of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 decided that the General Election of the President and Vice President should be implemented simultaneously with the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives. As for the previous decision, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 on the judicial review of the same article and law (Article 3 (5) of Law Number 42 of 2008), the Constitutional Court decided that the elections of the President and Vice President conducted after the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives (not simultaneously) is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The contradiction of these decisions is partly due to the variety of interpretation on the constitution.Keywords: inconsistency, the constitutional court, simultaneous elections.

scholarly journals Analysis of Reduction of Authority of The Constitutional Court Through The Law on General Election

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 01001
Author(s):  
Budiman N.P.D Sinaga ◽  
Sahat H.M.T Sinaga
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Law ◽  
Election Results ◽  
The Republic

In the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia, there is an order to further regulate in the Law such as the general election that has been enacted Law No. 7/ 2017 on General Election. In its Law, the results of the general election is merely a dispute over the result of the general election regarding the determination of the vote which may affect the election participants’ seats and the President and Vice President election results. The objective of this paper is to find out the legal consequences of the provisions of the law which reduce the authority of state institutions that have been regulated in the 1945 Constitution. The approach of this research is status approach that will be used by examining the laws and regulations relating to the problem. The provisions of the Law on General Elections can be said to have reduced the authority of the Constitutional Court granted the Constitution. There should be strong grounds for an amendment to this provision it can be done immediately by the House of Representatives and the President. Testing by the Constitutional Court may be done but it is better through changes by the House of Representatives and the President.

scholarly journals TELAAH TERHADAP PRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD DALAM PEMILU SERENTAK 2019

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Lutfil Ansori
Keyword(s):  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Legislative Election

This paper aims to examine the presidential threshold in relation to the simultaneous general elections 2019. After the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 14/PUU-XI/ 2013 which mandates the general election simultaneously raises the pros and cons of setting the presidential threshold. In the constitutional perspective, using or not using the presidential threshold is not contrary to the constitution, because the presidential threshold is an open legal policy of the legislator. The legislators need to rethink the provisions of the presidential threshold especially in relation to the simultaneous elections, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of applying or abolishing the presidential threshold, in order for the purpose of strengthening the presidential system to be achieved. The existence of simultaneous general elections has substantially eliminated the provisions of the presidential threshold, so the threshold requirement to nominate the President and Vice President becomes irrelevant. However, if the legislators demand presidential threshold, the middle path that can be selected is to apply the presidential threshold by using the legislative election 2014 with a record of institutionalizing the coalition.

scholarly journals Election Design Following Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fajar Laksono ◽  
Oly Viana Agustine
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
Major Implication ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Will ◽  
Legal Condition

The major implication from Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 is that the Constitution promotes fundamental changes to the design of the general election regarding both process and substance. Therefore, in order to uphold the Constitution, efforts are required to reconstruct the design of the general election, particularly so that elections are conducted in accordance with Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 as a representation of the spirit and the will of the 1945 Constitution. Essentially, the current norm regarding the implementation of general elections following the election of members of the representative institution is not consistent with the stipulations in Article 22E Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) and Article 1 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 aims to realign the implementation of the elections with the intentions of the 1945 Constitution. Through implementation of the original intent method and systematic interpretation, the Constitutional Court offered its interpretation that the framers of the amended Constitution intended that general elections have five ballot boxes, with the first for the People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR), the second for the Regional Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, DPD), the third for the president and vice president, the fourth for the Regional People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah, DPRD) at the provincial level and the fifth for the DPRD at the regency level. Thus, it can be concluded that the presidential elections should be conducted simultaneously with elections of members of the representative bodies. Through this decision, the Constitutional Court revoked the prevailing norm, such that Presidential Elections and Elections of members of representative bodies were no longer valid because they violated the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court introduced a new legal condition that obligated General Elections to be held simultaneously.

scholarly journals AKIBAT HUKUM REGULASI TENTANG THRESHOLD DALAM PEMILIHAN UMUM LEGISLATIF DAN PEMILIHAN PRESIDEN

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Sholahuddin Al-Fatih
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
National Scale ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Electoral Law ◽  
Democratic Country ◽  
Legislative Election

ABSTRAKIndonesia telah menyelenggarakan 11 kali pemilihan umum (pemilu) sejak tahun 1955. Hingga saat ini, rezim hukum pemilu telah melahirkan banyak regulasi dan ketentuan baru, seperti aturan tentang threshold atau ambang batas. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa Pasal 208 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2012 tentang Pemilu Legislatif terkait dengan ambang batas parlemen (parliamentary threshold) sebesar 3,5% tidak berlaku secara nasional. Melengkapi putusan tersebut, Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui Putusan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 menyebutkan bahwa pemilu tahun 2019 berlaku secara serentak, yang secara yuridis berdampak pada pola penerapan threshold. Rumusan masalah yang akan diurai dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana akibat hukum regulasi tentang threshold dalam pemilihan umum legislatif dan pemilihan presiden pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012 dan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam konteks negara demokrasi, ambang batas atau threshold diterapkan sebagai batas untuk menyaring kandidat anggota legislatif ataupun presiden yang bersifat open legal policy dan diserahkan kepada pembuat undang-undang.Kata kunci: pemilihan umum legislatif, pemilihan presiden, ambang batas. ABSTRACTIndonesia has held 11 general elections since 1955. Up to now, the regime of general electoral law has given birth to many new regulations and provisions, such as regulations on threshold. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 52/PUU-X/2012 states that Article 208 of Law Number 8 of 2012 concerning the Legislative Election with a parliamentary threshold of 3.5% does not apply on a national scale. Complementing the ruling, the Constitutional Court through Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 states the 2019 general election applies simultaneously that it may bring juridical effect on the pattern of threshold application. The formulation of the problem to be explained in this analysis is how the legal impact of the regulation on threshold in legislative and presidential elections after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 52/PUU-X/2012 and Number 14/PUU-XI/2013. This analysis uses a normative juridical research method. The results of the study show that in the context of a democratic country, the threshold is applied as a limit to filter out presidential candidates or legislative members, which is open legal policy and submitted to lawmakers. Keywords: legislative election, presidential election, threshold. 

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 92/PUU-X/2012 DAN ALTERNATIF MODEL HUBUNGAN KELEMBAGAAN TERKAIT PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Enny Nurbaningsih
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Decision Authority ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
Relationship Model ◽  
Institutional Construction

Presidential System Government as the result of 1945 Constitution Amandments has not been accomplised yet since its implementation reminds anomaly. President (executive) in presidential system has decision authority to produce acts with House of Representatives (DPR), without involving People Council (DPD) as one of parlement chambers. To restore DPD legislation role, Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-X/2012 states that DPD has equal position with DPR and President in acts establishment. It implicates that DPD should be involved since the legislation planning, but still does not have authority to make decision even for bills concerned with its authority. This Constitutional Court brings about the trilateral relationship model in legislation process without any institutional construction towards interchambers relation between DPD and DPR. It will result in Judicial Review despite the involvement of DPD in phase 1 and 2 Process, since this involvement does not bind DPR and President. Sistem pemerintahan presidensial hasil revisi UUD 1945 belum tuntas karena implementasinya masih memunculkan keganjilan, Presiden (eksekutif) dalam sistem presidensial ikut mengambil keputusan untuk menghasilkan undang-undang bersama DPR, tanpa pelibatan peran DPD sebagai salah satu kamar di parlemen. Untuk memulihkan peran legislasi DPD bidang tertentu, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 92/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa DPD berkedudukan setara dengan DPR dan Presiden dalam proses pembentukan undang-undang. Implikasi dari putusan ini DPD dilibatkan mulai dari proses perencanaan legislasi, tetapi tetap tidak dapat mengambil keputusan sekalipun untuk RUU terkait dengan kewenangannya. Putusan MK melahirkan model hubungan trilateral proses legislasi tanpa ada konstruksi secara kelembagaan terhadap hubungan interkameral antara DPR dan DPD. Hal ini akan akan berdampak pada pengujian undang-undang, walaupun DPD telah dilibatkan dalam proses tahap 1 dan tahap 2, karena pelibatan ini tidak mengikat DPR dan Presiden.

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI HUKUM TIDAK DILAKSANAKANNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM PERKARA PENGUJIAN UNDANG-UNDANG

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1089
Author(s):  
Andre Suryadinata ◽  
Toendjoeng Herning Sitaboeana
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

The Constitutional Court is one of the branches of judicial power that has authority to adjudicate at the first and last level whose decision is final to test the law against the Constitution as regulated in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The final nature of  decision of the constitutional court is binding on the entire community since it was said in the Open Plenary Session. Therefore, decision of constitutional court that invalidates the validity of a law must be followed up by legislators in the cumulative list open to the national legislation program. But in practice there are 2 (two) decisions that have not been followed up, namely Constitutional Court Decision Number 31 / PUU-XI / 2013 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 30 / PUU-XVI / 2018. Based on this description, it will be examined regarding the legal implications of not implementing the Constitutional Court Decision in case of judicial review? The author examines the problem using the method of normative legal research with the statutory approach. From the results of this study, it was found that the non-follow-up of the two decisions had violated the principle of rule of law in concept of the rule of law, and caused the loss of the decision-making power, and was a form of neglect of principle of legal awareness. So it is necessary to make changes in stages of the Constitutional Court Law and the House of Representatives' Regulations on Rules of Procedure.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN PRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 14/PUU-XI/2013

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-80
Author(s):  
Liberthin Palullungan ◽  
Trifonia Sartin Ribo
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Party System ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Impact

Indonesia is a country that implements a presidential system and a multi-party system jointly. The implementation of general elections has been regulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The presidential threshold is a concept used in proposing candidates for President and Vice President. Proposals are made by political parties or joining political parties by general election participants. This article analyzes the application of the presidential threshold after the Constitutional Court decision Number 114 / PUU-XI / 2013. The purpose of this writing is to determine the application of the Presidensitial threshold after the Constitutional Court decision Number 14 / PUU-XI / 013, and to determine the impact of the Constitutional Court decision number 14 / PUU-XI / 2013 on political parties. The research method used is qualitative and conceptual normative research methods. Based on this article, it is known that the application of the presidential threshold in which political parties must obtain seats 20% of the number of seats in the DPR or 25% of the valid votes nationally in the previous DPR elections, so that making new or small parties will not be able to nominate the President and Vice President themselves, but parties can form a coalition.

PERUBAHAN KEWENANGAN BADAN PENGAWAS PEMILIHAN UMUM TERHADAP PELANGGARAN PEMILIHAN UMUM LEGISLATIF BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 7 TAHUN 2017 TENTANG PEMILIHAN UMUM

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-61
Author(s):  
Jumardi Harsono
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legislative Elections ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Election Commission

ABSTRAKPerubahan Kewenangan Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum terhadap Pelanggaran Pemilihan Umum Legislatif berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 Tentang Pemilihan Umum. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: (1). Untuk mengetahui latar belakang terjadinya perubahan kewenangan Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum terhadap pelanggaran pemilihan umum legislative berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 Tentang Pemilihan Umum, (2). Untuk mengetahui mekanisme penyelesaian pelanggaran Pemilihan Umum oleh Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum terhadap pelanggaran pemilihan umum legislatif berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 7 tahun 2017 Tentang Pemilihan Umum. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan dua pendekatan yakni pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian yang melatarbelakangi perubahan kewenangan pelanggaran Pemilu yakni adanya aspirasi Bawaslu yang kesulitan dalam praktik, dimana saat terjadi pelanggaran administrasi Pemilu yang semestinya diselesaikan dengan cepat, tidak bisa dilakukan karena proses penerusan laporan dari pengawas Pemilu ke Komisi Pemilihan Umum/Komisi Pemilihan Umum Daerah tidak diproses secara cepat dan tidak diberi putusan serta tindakan. Disisi lain adanya usulan agar Bawaslu dan Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi dua lembaga yang menangani perselisihan Pemilu. Mahkamah Konstitusi menangani perselisihan hasil Pemilu, sedangkan Bawaslu menangani pelanggaran ketentuan Administrasi pemilu, menjadi penyidik dan penuntut pelanggaran ketentuan pidana Pemilu, perselisihan antara Komisi Pemilihan Umum dengan peserta Pemilu, perselisihan antara peserta Pemilu. Bawaslu hendak dikembangkan menjadi penegak hukum dan menyelesaikan sebagian sengketa Pemilu. Pelanggaran Pemilu dibagi menjadi enam jenis yaitu Tindak Pidana Pemilu, Kode Etik Penyelenggara Pemilu, Pelanggaran Administrasi Pemilu, Sengketa Pemilu, Perselisihan hasil Pemilu, sengketa tata usaha Negara. Keseluruhan pelanggaran Pemilu ini ditangani oleh masing-masing lembaga yang berbeda.Kata kunci: pemilu legislatif; pelanggaran pemilu; mekanisme penanganan pelanggaran pemiluABSTRACTT Changes to the Authority of the General Election Supervisory Board on Violations of Legislative General Elections based on Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. The objectives of this study are: (1). To find out the background of the change in authority of the General Election Supervisory Agency against violations of the legislative general election based on Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, (2). To find out the mechanism for resolving violations of the General Election by the General Election Supervisory Board against violations of legislative elections based on Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. This type of research is legal normative juridical research using two approaches namely the approach of legislation and a conceptual approach. The results of the research behind the change in election violation authority are the aspirations of Bawaslu which have difficulties in practice, where during the election administration violations which should be resolved quickly, cannot be done because the process of forwarding reports from Election supervisors to the Election Commission/Regional Election Commission is not processed quickly and not given decisions and actions. On the other hand there is a proposal that the Election Supervisory Body and the Constitutional Court be two institutions that handle election disputes. The Constitutional Court handles disputes over election results, while the Election Supervisory Body handles violations of electoral administration provisions, becomes investigators and prosecutors of violations of Election criminal provisions, disputes between the General Election Commission and election participants, disputes between election participants. Bawaslu wants to be developed into law enforcement and resolve some election disputes. Election Violations are divided into six types, namely Election Crimes, Election Organizers Code of Ethics, Election Administration Violations, Election Disputes, Election Results Disputes, State administrative disputes. All of these Election violations are handled by different institutions.Keywords: legislative elections; election violations; mechanism for handling election violations

scholarly journals Parliamentary Threshold and Political Rights Limitation

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-456
Author(s):  
Nur Kholis
Keyword(s):  
Political Party ◽  
General Election ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Law

Parliamentary threshold or political party threshold to occupy the people's representatives in parliament is a provision that has been regulated in the law. Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections regulates the existence of a parliamentary threshold. This means that the parliamentary threshold is legal. Especially based on legal considerations of the Constitutional Court in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 3 / PUU-VII / 2009 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XVI/2018, the parliamentary threshold is an open legal policy so that it can be said to be constitutional. But in reality the application of the parliamentary threshold limits political rights. The limitation of political rights occurs to participants and voters in the General Election

scholarly journals INTERPRETASI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERHADAP PENGUJIAN PERATURAN PEMERINTAH PENGGANTI UNDANG-UNDANG

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Anwar Hafidzi ◽  
Panji Sugesti
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
General Elections ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

Abstract: The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia has 4 (four) authorities and one obligation, as for those authorities, namely: (1) The Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and last level whose decisions are final to test the Law against the Constitution, (2) decide authority disputes of State Institutions whose authority is granted by the Constitution, (3) decide upon the dissolution of political parties, (4) and decide upon disputes about the results of general elections. The obligations, namely the Constitutional Court is obliged to give a decision on the opinion of the House of Representatives regarding the alleged violation by the President and / or Vice President. Beyond the specified authority, the Constitutional Court has increased its authority to test the Substitute Government Regulations. The research method used in this study is a type of normative legal research that is a literature study or documentary, by examining theories, concepts and legal principles. The results of this study found that there is indeed no rule that gives the Constitutional Court authority to test regulation in lie of law, but the Constitutional Court has the consideration that the legal norms contained in the Perppu are the same as the Law. The results of this study are that the interpretation used by constitutional justices to test Perppu is a teleological and sociological interpretation.Keywords: Interpretation; Test; PERPPU; Constitutional Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document